MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I do not have any opening
prepared, so I'll be happy to begin with questions. David.

Q Ari, on the federal charges in the sniper case, given the
Republican belief in state control in so many matters and that all
wisdom doesn't reside in Washington, why, with no obvious federal
interest, has the federal government decided to file charges and
potentially take the case away from the local jurisdictions?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's appropriate for anything involving law
enforcement decisions, that the appropriate authorities be the
Department of Justice to explain any actions they may be taking in this
matter. I think they'll be more than happy to answer any questions
about it. But anything about this would come from the Department of
Justice.

Q But can't the President defend his decision taken by his
Justice Department?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not personally talked to the President about
this, but decisions about jurisdictions in court cases are typically
things that are decided by prosecutors and professionals, and not
decided by the White House. And so this is a matter for the Department
of Justice to enter into their professional judgment about how justice
can best be served.

Q But the facts are that the President was made aware, blow by
blow, what was happening in the investigation; he spoke about this
publicly. But now he's not prepared to talk about why the federal
government has to step in and take a case away potentially from the
jurisdiction in which the crime was committed?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's an obvious separation for the
President to be kept informed about what is happening as the sniper is
on the loose, and to make certain that the federal government is doing
everything it can to catch them. But once they're caught, the
President understands that it should be delegated as far as the
decision-making about professional Justice Department decisions on how
to prosecute a case.

Q One more. Does politics play any role in the decision made to
have a Republican U.S. attorney and a Republican Justice Department
take it away from local Democratic officials?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, given the fact that you've got so many
jurisdictions involved with Democrat and Republican officials alike, I
think you can obviously see --

Q The biggest jurisdiction is a Democrat.

MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, this is being done on the basis of what
the law enforcement professionals think is the appropriate way to
proceed.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has not indicated there are hard
deadlines as such. I think that it's clear from listening to the
President speak that the end is coming near. The United Nations is
still hard at work on this matter. They have made some progress, and
it's still unclear what the ultimate outcome will be in New York.

Q Perhaps I wasn't clear. My question was, what are the
deadlines and timetables for his backup plan? That is, acting with
either congressional authorization or existing U.N. authorization.

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President has not established any hard
deadlines. And again, let's see what the United Nations does before
I'm prepared to discuss anything that could be an alternative.

Q Would they be similar to the U.N. deadlines which is seven
days to comply, 30 days for a full list of weapons of mass destruction,
45 days for inspectors, and 60 days for --

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is still working through the United
Nations. Let's see if the United Nations is able to get the job done
or not.

MR. FLEISCHER: We still do not have any information yet about the
exact nature of the gas that was used. Embassy Moscow is working to
ascertain that information. As for the President and his thinking
about all of this, the President feels very strongly that
responsibility for this rests with the terrorists who took these people
hostage and put them in harm's way in the first place. That's where
the President believes the fault lies.

Q He thinks then, therefore, it was okay to use gas -- I mean
at any cost?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the President abhors the loss of all life in
this instance. And the President makes no mistake about who is to
blame for this -- the people who put people in harm's way, or the
terrorists who took the lives --

Q I'm not asking who's to blame. Does he think it was right to
use gas, or does he think there were any possible alternatives?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President understands that in this circumstance
-- you had terrorists who had proven that they were going to kill, who
had already killed, who were deadly serious about killing more, who had
700 hostages, who had the theater booby-trapped and were prepared to
take mass quantities of life. The President views this entire matter
as a tragic one, but it's a tragedy that was brought on as a result of
the terrorists who put people in the way.

Q The answer is yes?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm addressing it as the President approaches it.

Q May I follow up on that? A couple questions on that. When
America was struck on the 11th, the first call I think we got from a
foreign leader was President Putin. Why hasn't President Bush called
President Putin immediately after a significant terrorist event in his
country?

MR. FLEISCHER: He did, Ron. President Bush called President Putin
immediately upon the taking of the hostages and offered America's
support, and said that we'll stand with you during this period. So he
indeed did.

Q Okay, sorry about that. Did the President or have any of his
people asked the Russian government what type of gas was used in the
siege that has affected three or four Americans?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's what I indicated earlier; that's being
worked through Embassy Moscow.

Q And again, have you gotten any further reading on what the
U.S. reaction is to the fact that the Russians won't tell us what type
of gas was used that may have hurt or killed Americans?

MR. FLEISCHER: We're continuing to work that through, through the
State Department and through embassy officials.

Q You don't find it surprising or frustrating that Russia just
doesn't say, here's the answer? Why are they dragging their feet?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard it be characterized by the
President, so I would hesitate to do so myself.

Q This morning you told us that the United States was consulted
by Russian security services in advance of the raid. About what? What
was the nature of those consultations?

MR. FLEISCHER: I looked into the question that I got earlier, and
to the best that I've been able to determine, there have been --
there was no advance notice to the Americans about the raid, no advance
discussions to Americans about the nature of the raid, what it would
entail, the type -- the gas. Obviously we still don't know what the
gas was, so there was no -- nothing that I've been able to discern
that would lead anybody to that conclusion.

Q But there were advance consultations about the situation?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, there were. There was discussions as soon as
the hostages were taken, which I think you expect any time there is any
type of incident around the world, there's a tendency to
information-share about anything that could be helpful. But nothing at
all that I've been able to glean along the lines that I was asked this
morning.

Q And then do you know what extent -- what the extent of U.S.
programs involving this kind of weapon, this kind of gas that was used
in --

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know specifically, Terry. What I can tell
you is that the Department of Defense does have a variety of programs
involving non-lethal systems, in a host of areas. I think many of
these have been public before. I know there has been interesting
stories in the press, for example, about foams, non-lethal foams that
can be used to immobilize people, weapons that shoot nets to trap
people, things of that nature that can be used in different types of
military situations.

Q And gasses?

MR. FLEISCHER: You'd have to talk to the Department of Defense
about any of the specific, individual programs that they have. I'm not
familiar with each and every one of them.

Q And just one on Iraq, quickly. The President, in the stump
speech that John referenced, also says if the United Nations won't act,
if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, the U.S. will lead a coalition to
disarm him. Who -- what nation, aside from the United Kingdom, has
publicly committed to join such a coalition?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I was asked this question about two or three
weeks ago when the President first started talking about this. And,
one, make no mistake, that if the United Nations fails, international
action will still follow. The only issue at that time will be the fact
that the United Nations wrote itself out of any international action.

I think, Terry, what is appropriate now, in the President's
judgment, is for the U.N. to proceed. Let us see if the U.N. is able
to do the job or not. If they are not, then I think you will have no
questions about who will proceed with the coalition the United States
and others will form. I think at that time it will be appropriate for
those nations to be named. But at this point, the President is still
content to work through the United Nations. We'll see where ultimately
that goes.

Q Right now no public commitments aside from the -- even the
United Kingdom, I guess, has said that unless --

MR. FLEISCHER: You can rest assured that what the President said
is based on the information he has gotten as he talks to other
nations. But again, because the President went to the United Nations
September 12th and said that he wanted to work with the United Nations
for days and weeks, not months -- while time is running out in New
York, they still have some time left to get the job done.

Q Why is time running out?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, Helen?

Q Why is the time running out?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think that everybody at the United
Nations -- the people who strongly support the President's position,
people who are still trying to figure out where they are, and those who
may oppose -- for example, like Syria -- they all recognize that
it's getting time to bring this to a conclusion.

Q What international -- what other international action are
you referring to? Would it be military force? You said there would
still be international action if the U.N. fails.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said repeatedly on his speeches
that if the United Nations fails to take action, the United States will
assemble a coalition that will force Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Q But don't Americans have a right to know if they're going to
send their sons and daughters into battle, who else in the world is
going to make a similar commitment? Why do we have to wait until the
U.N. either strikes out or succeeds?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President, as he indicated, wants to
work through the United Nations. And people will know, but I --

Q But the President is the one raising this issue, saying if
they fail, then we and a coalition of nations are going to go get him.
So, okay, why can't we know who else that is?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let's see first if the United Nations is capable of
getting it done.

Q But the President puts a wall between those two.

Q Ari, are you waiting for the midterm elections to be over
before you bring this U.N. resolution to a vote?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the timing is ultimately going to be decided
by the diplomats who are involved in it. And this will either take
place this week or next week, depending on what the status of the talks
is.

Q So domestic politics are not at all a concern?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. I thought -- reporters have raised that
question with me before, and frankly, this is a matter, I think, that
if somebody wants to say, why are you voting on it the week before the
election, if the vote is the week before the election -- they're
going to ask that question. If they want to say, why are you voting on
it the week after the election, if it's voted on the week after the
election, they're going to ask that question. I fail to see how
anybody can make the case that voting on it before or after benefits
one party or another. The vote will be decided by the diplomats in
accordance with the progress of the talks. It just so happens there is
an election at the same time.

Q You don't think forcing a vote on a U.N. resolution before an
election might scare off some voters, make voters nervous?

MR. FLEISCHER: Elizabeth, it's not the United States that's
dragging its feet. The United States went up to the United Nations on
September 12th. If this could have been resolved weeks ago, I think
the President would have been very satisfied.

Lester.

Q Ari, you and the President have emphatically described Islam
as "a religion of peace" -- emphatically. And in connection with
that, have you heard of any public protest by any peaceful Islamic
organization of what President Putin described as international Islamic
terrorists in Moscow, and more of them in Bali and Israel, New York,
the Pentagon, and by a Nation of Islam member, in Maryland, D.C. and
Virginia?

MR. FLEISCHER: You lost me, Lester.

Q No, have you heard any protest from the peaceful Muslims that
you refer to, as a religion of peace? Have you heard any protest of
these atrocities?

MR. FLEISCHER: Protest in which atrocities, Lester?

Q All of these atrocities -- in Moscow, Bali, and elsewhere
-- have you heard any protests?

MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I am not a protest tracker except for when
I travel with the President. Then I look out the window.

Q Why is the use of our military to protect the skies above the
District of Columbia justified when the use of U.S. troops to seal all
of our borders is not being done, and an illegal immigrant from Jamaica
named Malvo who was arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol was released by
the INS?

MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, one of the eternal issues that makes our
country great is our openness to people from other countries. And
since September 11th what we've realized is that we need to make
certain that people who are not supposed to come to America, that we
redouble our efforts to make certain people who don't belong here
cannot get in here. By the same token, one of the things that makes us
a free country and a strong country and a great country is the fact
that we welcome people from other nations to this country.

And along those lines, I was remiss, I should have noted this at
the beginning. The President this morning spoke with President Mubarak
of Egypt by telephone. The President consulted with President Mubarak
on efforts to promote resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
including the recent trip of Assistant Secretary Burns to the region to
follow up on the President's message about the importance of achieving
a road map to peace in the Middle East. They talked about the issue of
Iraq. The President reiterated his desire to settle this in a peaceful
way, but make no mistake, that the important goal was the disarmament
of Iraq.

President Mubarak was on a trip to Morocco as the two spoke and the
President also sent his regards to King Mohammed.

Q Ari, Putin said, in dealing with the Chechens, that this was a
part of the global war on terrorism. And earlier today you were asked
whether or not the administration agreed with that position. You said,
to the extent that al Qaeda is in Chechnya and the rest of the world.
Considering that Russia has given assistance to our war on terrorism,
would the White House, would the administration consider offering
intelligence or personnel or training regarding going after al Qaeda,
say in Chechnya?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we already do provide the information
sharing. That is a two-way street, and very productively so. It's one
of the interesting things about the end of the Cold War, and the
growing relationship between the United States and Russia. We do share
information with Russia in our mutual effort to fight terrorism. In
addition, I'd remind you that in support of putting an end to terrorist
activities in and around Chechnya, the United States is providing
military training and equipment programs for Georgia, particularly in
the Pankisi Gorge, a neighbor of Russia that's involved -- the
hostilities have been coming from areas that are particularly centered
around the Pankisi Gorge.

Q Considering what the President has said about the use of
poison gas recently, are there some circumstances in which it is okay
to use it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think that it's important to find
out first what exactly was the gas that Russia used. And it's
impossible to characterize it beyond that unless we know.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the briefing that was done by two of the
leaders of the inspection regime was very notable. It was notable for
what it said about the importance, in their judgments, about having
-- these are my words -- but a tough and effective resolution so
they can go about and do their jobs. They did both express a concern
about going back into the country in the absence of a clear, strong
resolution.

In addition, when they were asked about whether or not the
resolution needed to have the words "material breech" in it, they did
indicate -- and I want to find the verbatim on this to be precise --
but a reporter asked Dr. Blix, will it help you if "material breech"
will be defined in the resolution? And his answer was, "I think it
helps us if Iraq is conscience that non-cooperation will entail
reactions by the Council."

They both were diplomatic in stating that it is up to the United
Nations Security Council to settle the exact words and make any
determinations from that point forward. But that's a very notable
statement about the inspectors themselves believing they think it helps
if Iraq is conscience that non-cooperation will entail reactions by the
Council. I think the last thing the inspectors want to do is go in
there and be led around again in more cat-and-mouse games. They want
to do their job, they want to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Q -- Russians had objected to the inspections regime in the
U.S. and British resolution, saying that they were unrealistic and
unimplementable. Does the U.S. now believe that any of the Russian
concerns have faded away, or at least been softened by the Blix and
El-Baradei --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, what keeps striking me about this
whole process at the United Nations is the swirl of words, some of
which are repeated privately, some of which are not; some of which are
said publicly for no other intention or purpose than to be said
publicly. And that's the nature of diplomacy. That doesn't apply to
only one nation, that simply is how these things sometimes go. So the
real action will remain action behind closed doors and the Security
Council, and we'll see where that leads. No one has a clear picture of
it yet, but ultimately it will go.

Q One last detail on the timing. What -- it's not the
elections, it's not other things, what is it? What does determine the
timing of the vote?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it would be determined by a conclusion by
the diplomats that all other options have been exhausted, that there is
no more room for discussions, that all discussions have led to the most
fruitful point that is allowable, and that it's time for people to put
up their hands and vote.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is, one, gratified about the support
that he has received from President Jiang Zemin of China, as well as
President Koizumi -- Prime Minister Koizumi, and President Kim of
South Korea over the weekend. The President thought the remarks at
the -- by the leaders, particularly their call publicly for North
Korea to immediately dismantle its weapons program, was constructive.

Now what will happen is this is going to shift to the ministerial
level. And you will see continued talks among the United States, South
Korea and Japan, as well as China and Russia, about how to proceed.
And we will ultimately find out what North Korea's intentions are,
whether or not they see their way forward in the world in a world of
cooperation or in a world of isolation. The President hopes it will be
in a world of cooperation.

Q Is there a role for the U.S., though, in the near-term? You
mentioned the regional --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we'll see. We'll see exactly what the --
what type of talks, if any, will ensue. But the United States thinks
it's appropriate for Japanese officials and South Korean officials to
be in touch with their counterparts in North Korea. They will do so,
appropriately so. But the United States will remain firm in calling on
North Korea to make certain that it dismantles its weapons programs.

Q I want to make sure I understand your answer about the
question on the Moscow raid. You said that there were advance
consultations on the hostages. Did any of those consultations between
American and Russian officials regarding the hostages get into the area
of what the Russians might or might not be about to do to free those
hostages?

MR. FLEISCHER: To the best that I've been able to learn in the
inquiries that I have made, I have no information that would support
that the United States had any advance knowledge of the tactics that
would be used or the nature of the raid.

Q To your knowledge, there was no American input of any kind
into --

MR. FLEISCHER: How it transpired?

Q Right.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have not been able to determine that from
anybody I've talked to.

Q One more on Chechnya, if I may. I understand your answer that
the President believes that the main responsibility for the violence
rests with the Chechen terrorists. Does the President believe that the
Russian armed forces bear any responsibility for driving the Chechnens
to terrorism, given the tactic that Russian armed forces has used since
1994 in Chechnya?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's position toward the conflict,
itself, in Chechnya has been loud and clear, and that is, the best
solution and the ultimate solution to the dispute in Chechnya is a
political one. And the President has made that point repeatedly,
publicly and privately with Russian officials.

Q I understand that, but the question is, there is a history to
this thing. Chechen terrorism didn't begin, didn't, sort of spring
full grown from someone's brow. Does the Russian armed forces, does
the Russian government bear any responsibility for driving some number
of Chechens into terrorist actions out of desperation, given the kind
of tactics that the Russians have used?

MR. FLEISCHER: Ken, I can tell you something as powerfully, as
unequivocally as I possibly can from the President of the United
States: There is no excuse for terrorism in any part of the world by
anybody for any reason, no matter how worthy they believe their
political goals. No matter how much any individual or group thinks
that their political goals are more important than anybody else's --
there is no excuse to engage in terrorism innocent civilians and taking
people hostage as the means of trying to achieve their political
goals.

Q And in the President's view there's no connection between the
tactics that the Russian armed forces have used --

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, your question supposes that the Russians are
to blame for the terrorists taking Russian citizens hostage. And the
President does not share that. The President knows that the people
responsible, the people who shoulder the burden and the blame are the
terrorists. And there is no excuse -- around the world, in any
region -- for people resorting to terror against innocent civilians to
achieve their civilian goals.

Q Does that include the past, Ari?

Q Ari, does the administration take comfort in the strong words
that President Putin said about now really waging a war on terrorism?
And as part of that, I mean, does it ease their opposition to what
we're trying to do with Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Larry, I don't know that I can say that the
President takes comfort in hearing these strong words. I think,
frankly, the President's first reaction is sorrow that other nations
around the world are being victimized by terrorists, whether it's
President Megawati in Indonesia and the people of Indonesia and the
people of Australia, or whether it's the Russians now and President
Putin. I don't think the President welcomes the fact that other
nations are facing up to some of the same issues that we faced up to
after September 11th, because they are now victims of people who are
killers and murderers.

I think the President does recognize that the world does see how
global this terrorist threat can be, how important it is for us to work
together with our allies and friends on a common approach to
terrorism.

That's one of the positive outcomes of the APEC summit that the
President just left in Mexico, where the nations of the Pacific are
talking about how to work together to protect against terrorist
threats. It's one of the reasons there was an initiative there to --
just like in Canada, at the recent G-8 summit -- to bind our nations
together, where United States Customs officials will go to ports abroad
to work collaboratively with our friends in those ports to prevent
terrorists from using foreign soil to reach American soil.

So in some ways, the world is joining as one in the fight against
terrorism. But no matter what has caused a nation to step up to its
fight of terrorism, the President expresses sorrow that innocent lives
are taken as the world steps up.

Q And do you see it as having any kind of implications for the
situation with Iraq and Russian cooperation?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard anybody make that case, so I can't
say it.

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not privy to every discussion the President has
with his brother. But I can assure you that in all 50 states I think
every governor hopes that, regardless of party, that any type of
election problems are kept to as absolute a minimum as humanly
practical. Clearly, there are many lessons to be learned from 2000,
and the state of Florida reacted to them and has provided tremendous
amount of funding and resources to the various counties throughout
Florida as a result of that. I think other states, as well, have done
their best individually to respond to what happened there.

This race is, of course, the number one target for the Democratic
National Committee, as said by the Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee. They said this is their number one target, their number one
goal is to defeat Governor Jeb Bush. And we'll see ultimately what the
outcome of that race is.

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me -- I'll have to take a look and see if the
President has. I saw briefly a report on those statistics this
morning, but I have not seen an evaluation of the causes for it. Let
me see if I have any evaluation I can offer, and I'll post it.

Q Yes, Ari, two questions. The first one has to do, a week from
today we're going to have elections in this country. And one of the
states that is very tight, as pollsters tell us, is Minnesota. Today,
a special service is being held for Senator Paul Wellstone. Is the
President going to visit Minnesota after today, to help the Republican
nominee?

MR. FLEISCHER: We've announced our schedule through Saturday.
We'll

have additional announcements over the next day or two, and we'll
keep you filled in about anywhere the President may go.

Q Is that an option?

MR. FLEISCHER: All 50 states are options. And, as you know, we
have a regular practice of fully informing you as the decisions are
finalized and as it gets closer to the events.

Q Another question. When President Bush, according to you,
called President-elect of Brazil da Silva, and told him he looks
forward to working with him, especially with regard to advancing
democracy, good governance and free trade in the hemisphere. It's been
the practice here, many times the President-elect visits Washington and
meets with the President before he takes office. Being that Brazil is
such an important component of the economic situation of our
hemisphere, especially South America, is President Bush going to meet
with President da Silva before he takes over?

MR. FLEISCHER: During the conversation, the President extended an
invitation to President da Silva to come and visit the United States.
And of course, clearly, it still is the term of President Cardoso in
Brazil, so at the appropriate time he will review his schedule in
Brazil and I'm certain that the two will meet somewhere.

Incidentally, I said all 50 states are options. I should back up,
it may not be fully the whole gamut of all 50 being options, but many
are.

Q Hawaii. (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: Hawaii? Do I hear Hawaii, John Roberts?

Q And Alaska.

MR. FLEISCHER: And Alaska.

Q Just on that very point, I just want to ask, could you
explain, what is the sensitivity to talking about campaigning in
Minnesota? I mean, obviously, it's something -- I don't want to give
you the answer, but -- (laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: The service is tonight for Senator Wellstone. And
there will be a time for politics and there will be a time again as the
people of Minnesota focus on the fact that there is still an election
day scheduled. Today is not the day. Today is a day to remember
Senator Wellstone.

Q Some of the public statements at the United Nations Security
Council, which you suggested didn't mirror what was happening in
private --

MR. FLEISCHER: Right.

Q -- are sending a signal of disunity on the Council that's
playing into Saddam Hussein's hands.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, what I'm saying on that is that is obvious in
any type of negotiation, particularly negotiation involving diplomats,
there are various levels of discourse. Not all of the levels of
discourse that are public are shared privately. And so there's always
an attempt to trying to push the envelope farther out so that an
ultimate compromise is closer to what somebody really wanted. That's
the nature of negotiations. That's what I'm alluding to.

I think the ultimate test about whether or not there is any signal
sent to Saddam Hussein will come in its final form -- whether the
United Nations has an agreement or doesn't have an agreement. That
will be, indeed, a signal to Saddam Hussein. And that's why the
President called on the United Nations to be the United Nations and not
the League of Nations.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, Congress has still left unfinished
the business of terrorism insurance with the hundreds of thousands of
jobs that that can create. And the President hopes that when Congress
comes back for the lame duck session, they'll be able to finish the
work on that. It got close, it didn't get finished.

The President hopes that Congress will fully fund the budget
priorities the President has sent up to the Hill, which are pending,
particularly in the area of homeland security, which has money for
bioterrorism defenses and for first responders' needs. There are many
issues pending up there that Congress has to address. And once they're
finished with these important priorities, the President hopes that they
will hold the line on spending, because the President worries about the
effect of deficit spending and overspending can have on fiscal
discipline.

The energy bill that is pending up in the Congress is also good for
America. It represents energy independence. It also represents
conservation. But the President still views the economy as the
fundamentals remain strong; that the economy is not as strong as he
would like it to be, but particularly, another area that can be
effective is the acceleration and the making permanent of the tax
relief.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't want to get into a semantic issue.
The President has said, of course, that we are at war. The President
described the action following September 11th, against the Taliban and
al Qaeda as phase one of the war. If you remember in, I think it was
March of 2002, the President talked about the expansion to make certain
that al Qaeda has minimized in its ability to reconfigure itself in
places like Yemen and the Philippines and elsewhere. And the President
clearly is concerned about global terrorism and people who would use
terrorist means to harm our citizens either here or abroad.

Q This relates to my friend, Sarah's question. In the wake of
the murder of the U.S. diplomat in Jordan, will the United States draw
down Americans in nations where they are at risk? And will you assist
in their protection? I know that you used the phrase "take
precautions," but that really doesn't help when the whole country is
dangerous.

MR. FLEISCHER: Connie, unfortunately, the State Department has a
vast experience in dealing with how to protect Americans abroad.
Fortunately, Jordan is not the first country in which Americans who
valiantly serve our country -- either in the State Department, the
Foreign Service, AID or any of the other number of agencies -- where
people and their families move abroad to serve America are threatened.
So these issues all get evaluated by the State Department, by their
security personnel on the ground. I'm not in a position to give you
any further updates from State. State will have that, based on their
information.

Q What about warning Americans, private Americans, in a lot of
these dangerous countries?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, travel advisories, again, that is all done by
the State Department.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President believes that the agenda that
he believes in will have much more of a chance of passing if there were
members of the Congress in both the House and the Senate who shared his
view. And, clearly, when you take a look at what has not gotten done
on the Hill this year, you can see a great many issues which would have
gotten done if the House and the Senate had been in Republican hands.
And so the President looks at this from a very broad picture and thinks
that it would better for the country if many of the items on his agenda
had enough support to get passed into law. So he is talking about,
when he campaigns, the need to have a Republican Senate and a
Republican House.

Q That he believes the country would be more secure if both
Houses were in Republican hands?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there's no question that if the
Senate had been in Republican hands, the homeland security bill would
have passed already.

Q Let's be clear about this, so we don't get calls back later on
our leads. Were you answering the question yes or no? It sounds like
you were saying yes.

MR. FLEISCHER: I was answering the question that the President
believes a broad agenda, including the creation of the department of
homeland defense, would have more of a chance of being passed into law
if the House and Senate had more people who supported the President's
agenda. I'm not going to -- I think members of both parties have a
desire to make America safe. I don't think anybody has questioned
that. But when it comes to the purpose of campaigning, the President
wants to elect people from both parties who support his agenda.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we'll see, ultimately, again, what happens as
this thing heads down to zero hour. It's not there yet. It's
approaching, but it's not there yet. And we'll see. I have not really
heard if people have come to the final conclusions that if there is not
enough support whether it should or should not go to a vote. I don't
think people are looking at it that way yet, Ron. I think people are
still trying to look at how we can put this together if we can.

Q So right now you're not committed to having an up or down vote

--

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm just saying I haven't heard any
conversations about that level of tactical planning. The focus right
now is still working with France and Russia and everybody else to get
to the point where there is sufficient support for it to pass.

Q But if you've already acknowledged the possibility of defeat,
wouldn't you also say what are we going to do if it looks like we're
losing?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think things are defeated because, one, either
they're vetoed, two, they're not voted on, or three, they're defeated.
And any one of those could be the possibility, or it could pass. And I
don't think anybody is going to know which of those various
possibilities will take place until probably shortly before the vote.
In some ways, it's not unlike the Congress; when there's a vote,
sometimes you don't know how it's going to go until the vote is
called.

Q Ari, on the economy, you mentioned a few moments ago measures
are pending in Congress that could help stimulate growth. There are
other measures out there that are being talked about -- extending
unemployment insurance, rebates, et cetera. However, there is a column
in the Wall Street Journal today by Allen Murray which says that the
best way to reinvigorate the economy is not by changing monetary or
fiscal policy in any of these ways, but to end the business and
investment uncertainty that now exists because of our Iraq policy. If
I may quote, he says that, "The best tonic for the U.S. economy would
be a successful war or a bloodless end of the Saddam Hussein regime."
What is the administration's response?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the administration's response is that in the
event that there is any military action in Iraq, it's not going to be
driven by economic considerations, it's going to be driven by the need
to protect the American people from the real-life threat involving
Saddam Hussein in his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. That
would be the factors that the President considers.

Q Do you believe, though, that in terms of business uncertainty,
that a factor that contributes to it right now is this uncertainty as
to whether or not the United States is going to war?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that a variety of economists have looked at
a variety of factors in the economy and tried to determine what has
created the economy that we presently have. And there's no unanimity
among the economists -- and I'm not an economist, so I wouldn't want
to venture into what the exact causes are.

Q Ari, getting back to the question on a U.N. vote, in his
speech in September, the President -- and you've quoted this many
times -- said it would be a matter of days and weeks, not months. And
that takes us roughly to November 12th. Do you think that's an
adequate time frame to work in? Can we expect to see a resolution --

MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I was indicating earlier that the
President would have been satisfied if the United Nations was able to
address this issue and come to a conclusion earlier than they have. We
are approaching the point where it's months, and the President said
that he did not want it to go months. And so I think that --

Q Was that then just a figure of speech for him, or does he view
that as a literal marker that the U.N. should abide by?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard the President give a hard date.
But I think everybody sees that the United Nations is approaching
decision time. And that, I think, is something that you hear from not
only the United States, but from France and from other nations that
serve on the United Nations Security Council. It's been a good debate;
it's been a long debate; the time will soon come for the debate to
end.